User talk:Pro-Lick

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Pro-Lick (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

-- You have a 3RR unblock, why do you want to be unblocked at this point in time -- Tawker 19:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important Wikipedian References

Hello, Pro-Lick, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Anti-Abortionists' Threats

Enjoy the do-it-our-way or we'll burn, bomb, and shoot you logic.

Regarding your edits to Abortion

Pro, the particular sentence you are objecting to has been accepted by consensus. At this point, attempting to edit the sentence can only be seen as an attempt to overturn the NPoV consensus. Refusal to abide by consensus canhave serious consequences, up to and including being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please re-read the discussion on the talk page, linked above, If you feel you have additional information or new arguments, please feel free to make them--but please do NOT simply ignore the consensus that has already been established. Justin Eiler 03:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments

Apparently, I posted a comment in an area that was reserved for citations. I didn't realize that until after you removed it, because I'm not used to that sort of thing. Somehow I read right through the words "Not for opinions" without it registering that you were declaring that section a comment-free zone.

I thought you should know. I'm putting my comments back now, in a comments subsection. If you've got a better idea, refactor away, my friend. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your main issue was corrected in the definitions quote, so there was no further need for the comment. You obviously can go into the history and grab your comment and repost it elsewhere if you feal something else needed a comment. If you want to add a separate comment section, that's fine. I marked the source section clearly and will keep it as such.--Pro-Lick 03:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings (see above for threats)

Regarding this edit:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, GTBacchus^(talk) 18:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stated loving and trolling are not mutually exclusive. Nothing more. That was focussed on the content and, if it attacks anyone personally, that is incidental.

You also made a snide comment in your edit summary - you are not as clever as you think. Good

I guess I appreciate the irony on some level - to point out someone's snide remark, and couch it within a snide remark of one's own. None of us is clever enough to write an encyclopedia alone, so we have to work together. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Lick, I hope you don't think I'm harassing you, or out to get you or something. I like that you seem smart and passionate, and I welcome your contributions to Wikipedia. I suspect we agree politically, although I consider that irrelevant here. Please consider that your editing style is rubbing several editors the wrong way, and whether that's really how you want to interact with this project.

You could argue semantics, if you want to, and explain why your snide remark wasn't technically a personal attack, but only a snide remark... or you could refrain from snide remarks because they're in the same spirit as personal attacks: derogatory, unproductive, and calculated to malign another contributor. Please, let's all respect each other very much. I respect your contibutions, comments, efforts, and obvious passion for improving the article, as well as GoodandEvil's. Let's all be cool with each other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - FYI - please do not refer to another editor's contibutions as vandalism, no matter how wrong or misguided they are, and not matter how much you disagree with them. GoodandEvil is doing what he sees is best for the article, and that is never vandalism. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism, where you'll see that we define that word very narrowly here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder on vandalism. I was picking up its use from certain other users that used it outside the specific meaning it has here.--Pro-Lick 19:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AnnH (aka Musical Linguist) Confession

Hi, Pro-Lick. I just want to make sure that you're fully aware of the three-revert rule, which says that you may not perform more than three reverts on any page in any twenty-four hour period. If you violate that rule, you may be blocked for twenty-four hours. I noticed that you broke the rule recently, but I don't normally report people, unless they keep on doing it after being warned, and I particularly don't like reporting newcomers. AnnH ♫ 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I started my last edit to you (which you seem to have partly deleted) a few hours ago, by clicking the + at the top of the page to open a new section. I wrote some of it, and then went away and kept the computer running. When I came back, I made some other edits (I had the browser open in two windows) and then finished the one on this page. I see now that you were blocked a few hours ago, which I did not know when I pressed "Save page". However, apart from "you may be blocked", I don't think the message would have been any different. I'll also add that people who have a record of edit warring can actually get blocked even if they stay within the limit. If they keep on making exactly three reverts a day, and making the fourth one just outside of the twenty-four-hour period so that an administrator thinks they're gaming the system, they can be blocked. Also, they can get longer than 24 hours for subsequent offences. Anyway, I rarely report for 3RR, and even more rarely block for it, but I just thought you should be made fully aware of what can happen. And please remember, three reverts per day is not a right. AnnH ♫ 01:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common' down and Block me

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convenient to ask on the discussion page for sources after blocking me and failing to provide even 1 to support your POV. YOu can see the complete list compiled so far here on the talk page under Medical, Reliable, & Reputable Sources WP:RS.--Pro-Lick 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concede the block is really bad timing on my part; but to be straight forward you violated the 3RR last night. I didn't block because I thought sleeping on things would quiet things down, clearly it did not. Your list is well done and researched, however it is also selective. The issue here is abortion does result in the termination/death of the whatever is being aborted. That remains true regardless of the wording your sources choose to use. Does "death/termination" belong in the first sentence; maybe not; but it was debated a while back and that is what was decided. Your sources also do not change that. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase: "The issue here is spermicicde does result in the termination/death of the whatever is being spermied. That remains true regardless of the wording your sources choose to use." That's your opinion again. Still unsported, still unsourced. You can claim to have won a debate in a restaurant in the middle of Alabama, but it doesn't change what the experts agree on unless you have evidence from other known experts. Moreover, someone quoted (unsourced) that the rules say you can't use Wiki as a source. If that's true, then it is also true, if not more true, for using the results of a debate in a bar in a small town at some forgotten time in the past.--Pro-Lick 23:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogies are unprecise, just as with cheek cells, sperm are not independantly developing organisms; rather they are differentiated specialized cells that have very limited function and lifespan when seperated from the host. Your understanding of Wikipolicy is very poor but certainly improving. Regarding using Wiki as a source, that is in regards to articles and making self reference in articles; when it comes to discussing changes to articles previous points/decisions/consensus is absolutely pertinent. I'm not here to repeat debates over and over again; and I like most people don't like WikiLawyering; especially from new users. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And support the unsourced claims with a personal attack that I'm "WikiLawyering". Quite the impressive political campaign. See below regarding consensus vs. policy. Whether you like my analogies or not, you provide no sources for your claims and the vast majority of medical references do not agree with your definition, much less that of the consensus of your small group of editors.

LOL, personal attack, that's cute. It was a short hand way of observing you continually attempt to leverage your interpretation of policy, and your small group of sources, to get your way. Also I was trying to give you advice, and clarify that sort of behavior closes more doors than it opens. I may have a "small group of editors" I have gotten to know in my productive time here at Wikipedia, but most aren't interested/located at the abortion article. You aren't going to get your way because of your behavior and attitude. Anything else you want to accuse me (or others) of isn't terribly accurate nor fair.

Please recognize despite all the WikiPolicy indicating the contrary, controversial articles are a balancing act, and NPOV does not mean removing things we find objectionable. If that was the case a while back I would have went against "death" and put "incapable of surviving" instead; but that didn't happen, I second guessed the decision in my head and then moved on. As to sources, I'm skimming your list, Encarta among others use "death" and "die" in their definitions. Also since Encarta is an actual encyclopedia... I'd say that carries more weight at Wikipedia than medical texts. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus vs. Policy

Linked to and a few choice phrases quoted for your convenience:

"Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda."
"With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities."
"Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate."
"This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing."